Multi TSA Portfolio
Gates that actually stop a bad cutover.
Fixed-fee proposal in 48 hours. Senior team on day one. The first conversation is always free.
A TSA gate review is the checkpoint where a workstream must prove it is ready to move forward, against criteria fixed before the meeting. The buyer who runs real gates, with the authority to stop a workstream that has not earned its pass, catches a not ready condition while it is still a delay rather than an outage. Gates are how a buyer keeps day one readiness honest under deadline pressure.
A gate review is a checkpoint with the power to say no. A workstream arrives at the gate, presents evidence against criteria agreed in advance, and the governance body decides whether it may proceed to the next phase. The decision has three possible outcomes: pass, fail, or pass with conditions. The third is common and useful, because it lets a workstream move on minor open items while logging them rather than holding the whole program for a detail.
The test of whether a buyer has real gates is simple: has one ever failed. A program where every gate passes on schedule is not running gates, it is running status meetings dressed as gates. The value of the gate is precisely the possibility of failure, because that possibility forces the workstream to do the readiness work before the date rather than presenting optimism and hoping. A gate with no teeth trains the program to perform readiness rather than achieve it.
Gates differ from ordinary status reporting in what they decide. Status reporting tells the committee how things are going. A gate decides whether the program may take an irreversible step, such as switching off the seller's system. That difference in consequence is why gates carry criteria and evidence, while status carries a narrative. A buyer needs both, but confusing the two is how a program walks into a cutover it was never ready for.
Place gates at the phase boundaries that carry real risk, not at arbitrary calendar points. A common set for a TSA exit workstream runs design complete, build complete, test complete, and ready for cutover. Each marks the moment before an investment of effort or an irreversible action, which is exactly where a buyer wants the chance to stop. A gate placed after the risky step has already been taken protects nothing.
Resist the urge to add gates for control's sake. Each gate costs preparation time and management attention, and a program with a gate every two weeks teaches its teams that gates are noise. The discipline is to gate the transitions that matter and let the milestone tracker handle the progress between them. A small number of gates that genuinely stop the program beats a long sequence that everyone has learned to wave through.
The final gate, ready for cutover, deserves special weight because it precedes the point of no return. Once the buyer switches off the seller's service, reversal is expensive or impossible, so the readiness criteria at that gate should be the most demanding and the evidence the most complete. This final gate is where the broader go or no go decision is made, and it should never be the first time the committee discovers a workstream is behind.
A gate is only as good as its criteria, and the criteria must be set before the gate, not negotiated during it. Good criteria are evidence based and binary: the test cases are executed and passed, the cutover runbook is written and rehearsed, the rollback plan exists and has an owner. A criterion phrased as substantially complete invites the workstream to argue its way through, while a criterion phrased as a checkable fact either is or is not satisfied.
Tie the criteria to the evidence the committee will actually inspect. Asking whether testing is complete is weak. Asking to see the test execution report, the open defect list by severity, and the sign off from the business owner is strong, because it forces the workstream to bring proof rather than assertion. The act of preparing that evidence is itself most of the readiness work, which is why a real gate improves the program even before the meeting starts.
Build the criteria once and reuse them across workstreams so the bar is consistent. A gate that one workstream passes on thin evidence and another fails on strong evidence is not a gate, it is a popularity contest. A standard set of phase criteria, applied the same way to every workstream, is what gives the committee confidence that a pass means the same thing wherever it is awarded.
The body that decides a gate cannot be the workstream presenting at it. Independence is what makes the gate worth holding, because a workstream judging its own readiness will, under deadline pressure, find itself ready. The decision rests with the steering committee or a delegated readiness board that has the standing to say no and the willingness to use it. Without that independence the gate is theater.
The deciding body needs the authority to make a failure stick. A gate that fails and is then overruled by a date pressure from above teaches every workstream that gates do not really hold, and the next workstream will present accordingly. If leadership wants the option to accept a risk and proceed past a failed gate, that should be an explicit, documented decision by the people accountable for it, not an informal nudge that quietly empties the gate of meaning.
Give an independent voice a seat at the cutover gate in particular. A buyer-side advisor or a program assurance lead who is not running the workstream can ask the uncomfortable questions the team has stopped asking itself. The point is not distrust of the team; it is that the people closest to the work are the least able to see where it is thin, and a fresh, accountable challenge at the gate is cheap insurance against a cutover that should not have gone.
A failed gate is the system working, and the program should treat it that way rather than as a black mark. When a gate fails, the workstream does not proceed, the gaps are logged with owners and due dates, and the gate is rescheduled for when the evidence will exist. The cost of that failure is a delay measured in days or weeks. The cost of waving the workstream through would have been a live outage measured in lost revenue and a dispute with the seller.
Feed every failed gate into the risk and issue process so the gaps are tracked to closure rather than forgotten until the rescheduled date. A gate that fails and produces no tracked actions has failed twice. The discipline is to convert the gate's findings into the same owned, dated items the program uses everywhere else, so the path back to a pass is visible and managed rather than left to the workstream's good intentions.
Record the gate decisions and their evidence as part of the program's history. The pattern of where gates failed, and why, is some of the most useful material for the lessons learned process, because it shows exactly where readiness was routinely overestimated. A portfolio that studies its gate failures sets sharper criteria on the next carve-out, which is how a buyer turns a hard checkpoint into a compounding operating advantage.
A scheduled checkpoint where a workstream must prove against fixed criteria that it is ready to move to the next phase of a TSA exit. The gate either passes, fails, or passes with conditions. A gate the program cannot fail is not a gate, it is a status meeting.
Usually a small number tied to the phases that carry real risk: design complete, build complete, test complete, and ready for cutover. Each gate has criteria the workstream must evidence. Too many gates create bureaucracy; too few let a workstream drift between checkpoints with no proof of progress.
The governance body that owns the exit, not the workstream presenting at it. Letting a workstream pass its own gate removes the independence that makes the gate worth holding. The decision rests with the steering committee or a delegated readiness board working from documented evidence.
The workstream does not proceed, the gaps are logged with owners and dates, and the gate is rescheduled. A failed gate is the system working: it caught a not ready condition before it became a live outage. The cost of a failed gate is a delay; the cost of skipping it is a cutover that breaks.
The final gate, and how the cutover decision actually gets made.
Read the article →How progress between gates gets tracked on evidence, not narrative.
Read the article →The body that holds the authority to fail a gate and make it stick.
Read the article →The 90-day governance, IT, finance, HR and procurement separation plan we run on live carve-outs. Get the playbook plus the bi-weekly Day One Letter — short, signal-heavy, buyer-side.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click. · Read the overview first →
Fixed-fee proposal in 48 hours. Senior team on day one. The first conversation is always free.
Seven buyer-side moves to exit a Transition Services Agreement on time and below budget. The mark-up, the extension-fee curve, exit sequencing, and the 11-month calendar.
One tactic, one benchmark, or one pattern from a recent buyer-side engagement. Short. Signal heavy. Free.
Subscribe to The Day One Letter →